OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

Then look at what other countries fit into the reasons why we went to
war, China, North korea, virtually the whole middle east, Russia.

Its beginning to look like the 'war on terrorism' is just an excuse
for some really terrible political decisions.

BEGINNING???

You, sir, are not staying the course. ;-)

BTW, I believe the PO is signed for the USCG (or whatever we call the
USCG nowadays) CASA235s, so the bribe money has been paid and thus the
Spanish troops can go home. They have those home grown bad guys to
take care of, though as we know, it's more police action than military
action.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
"in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
Sunday.

Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
such things happen, even in politics.

Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
behind him is giving in to terrorism. Considering the chaos
he has caused so far, and the lack of indication that this has
reduced the threat of terrorism (the Spanish have every reason
to suspect the contrary), this line is getting a little stale. Maybe
Zapatero thinks Spain knows better ways to fight terrorism.
If so he may very well be right; they at least the advantage of
experience.

It is a bad thing for Iraq, but I suspect that in the long run it
makes very little difference. These 1,400 troops matter far
less than the continuing lack of a credible policy to give Iraq
a stable and democratic government. George W. may vow to
use "decisive force", but US soldiers would have to be able
to walk on water to be able to decide this one in his favour.

It is about time Bush and Blair got a grip on reality. It may be
nice to use the words "freedom" and "democracy" a lot, but
the man in the street in Fallujah -- thoroughly used to the tricks
of propaganda -- probably hears "a pro-American government
that will sell its oil cheap, condone the Israeli treatment of the
Palestinians, and replace Islam with Coca-Cola and debased
television programmes." And, sadly enough, that perception may
be closer to the truth than Dubyah's high-flying rethoric.

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote:


I disgree that the Spanish troops might be cowards, like the French.

But ...

Should be noted that both Spain and France are actively participating at
Afganistan, which is UN operation. Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
United Nations backing.

Unlawful invasion my ass. Read UN resolution 1441
(and the dozen or so earlier ones, almost all of
which charge the members with forcing Iraq to comply
with the resolutions). A few members accepted their
role (e.g. - US, UK, others) - while others were too
busy trying to cover their own violations of the sanctions
- and maintaining some very lucrative deals with Saddam.

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:


Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
behind him is giving in to terrorism.

What would you call it, instead?

Maybe Zapatero thinks Spain knows better ways to fight terrorism.

Send them birthday cards?
Increase their terrorism threat level from "run" to "hide"?

Without leaders able to make essential, but possibly
unpopular decisions, a citizenry soon learns it can vote
troublesome options into oblivion, and vote itself a "golden
age" of peaceful indulgence... for a short time. Terrorists
watch with glee as these sheep grow to accept extortion as a
good way to ensure a few more days of the grand times - until
collapse.

John Cook wrote:


Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.

Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would
quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
Iran - and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
- like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
Middle East.

Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

If that was was true, recent polls wouldn't show that
the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
them to the thugs and Jihadis until they are capable of
dealing with these criminals on their own...

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message ...
John Cook wrote:


Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.

Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would

Which is now a pipe-dream.

quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
Iran -

Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.

and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
- like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
Middle East.

Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

If that was was true, recent polls

Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

wouldn't show that
the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
them to the thugs and Jihadis

Which does not translate to that the 70% of the Iraqi people wanted
them there in the first place.

until they are capable of
dealing with these criminals on their own...

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.


And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true. The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy. It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests of the civilized world.


Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much. The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown. Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Jarg

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
"in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
Sunday.

Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
such things happen, even in politics.


There is another aspect to this. The outgoing Government had tried to
blame the Madrid train bombing on ETA or other Basque seperatists.
When the truth came out many Spaniards must have lost complete
confidence in the Government and voted them out. Really a government
that lies that much has to go in any democracy. This sort of
irresponsibillity could have re-ignited the Basque seperatist issues.

Not only had there been a consistent pattern of intelligence plants:
Niger uranium document forgeries, aluminium tubes supposedly for
uranium isotope seperation that turn out to be nothing of the sort,
faked or hyped WMD finds, bio war labs that are trailers for inflating
weather balloons, Surface to surface missiles that had a 110km
(exceding the 100km limit) range without a warhead used as a pretext
for invasion, the smearing of Hans Blix, the earlier faked baby
incubator theft but now the Government was essentialy lying on top of
letting itself be conned.

It is not wonder that the public has lost confidence in the Government
and the press.

If there is a general middle eastern up rising, equivalent to dozens
of Fallujiya, current US forces will not cope. As Bismark said "It's
not worth the blood of one Pommeranian Grenadier"

Personally I wouldn't want to be part of it at all.

The British in Northern Ireland commited 1/10th as many stupidities as
the US has managed and see where that led.

"Jarg" wrote in message .com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.

I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state. Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.

Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.

of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?

And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.

Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.


Jarg

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:41:34 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...

Dubyah's favourite whine is that everyone who is not 100%
behind him is giving in to terrorism.

What would you call it, instead?

I would it call it seeking a way of fighting terrorism
which is driven by knowledge and common sense
instead of testosterone.

Sounds like a speech from the PHB files. Has a whole lot of fluff
that doesn't say anything. Exactly *what* would you do?